Commercially available image display systems in the medical field utilize various techniques to present image views to a medical practitioner. Specifically, the image views produced within modalities such as Computed Radiograph (CR), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and the like is displayed on a display terminal for review by a medical practitioner at a medical treatment site. These image views are used by the medical practitioner to determine the presence or absence of a disease, tissue damage etc. Many attempts to optimize the presentation of such image views to the medical practitioner in order to improve review quality and speed have been made.
Medical image views (i.e. views taken at different orientations within the patient) have been traditionally presented to a medical practitioner through the use of a hanging protocol. A hanging protocol is a display protocol that medical practitioners use to display different medical image views in a preferred sequence or order. Use of a hanging protocol allows the medical professional to review and study medical image views for a patient in a particular predictable sequence or order of interest. This allows the medical practitioner to more efficiently analyze medical image views for a large number of patients.
As shown in FIG. 1, in cases where physical films are still used, a technician clips such X-ray films 2 showing different image views for a patient onto a film alternator belt 3 according to a preferred viewing sequence or hanging protocol. The medical practitioner then has the technician run the film alternator belt 3 to display the various X-ray films 2 for a patient so that the views are displayed in a familiar sequence (i.e. according to a hanging protocol). The medical practitioner then reviews the various X-ray films 2 for the particular patient. In the example shown in FIG. 1, two studies are being compared view by view (i.e. the axial view of Current Study A is compared to the axial view of Prior Study B, etc.) for patient A. This particular arrangement allows the medical professional to compare and contrast the current views with prior views on a view-by-view basis. This process is repeated for each patient to be examined that day. It has been observed by medical practitioners that by regulating the order in which medical image views are presented for a particular diagnostic review, it is possible to obtain effective and efficient review.
Since the advent of digitized image views, medical image display systems have made attempts at incorporating the hanging protocol concept into medical image display systems. Today, computerized medical image review systems provide a medical practitioner with the ability to display a particular set of images in a particular sequence or order on a display screen and across multiple display screens.
However, such image display systems require the medical practitioner to manually select a number of display parameters before providing the desired comparative review image display. For example, the medical practitioner will typically need to first select a desired screen layout. A screen layout is a definition of how images of a patient are to be arranged and displayed on a display and includes the number of studies to display, the number of series to display and the number of images to display. Then the medical practitioner needs to select a study type (e.g. X-RAY, CT SCAN, etc.) and the status of study (e.g. new, prior, reported, etc.) all of which will affect certain display parameters within the system. Finally, the medical practitioner will then need to manually select an optimal study view mode, namely how the studies of a patient are to be arranged across multiple monitors for the screen layout previously selected.
That is, conventional image display systems require the medical practitioner to manually enter a substantial number of image characteristics and image viewing preferences in order to obtain a desired display of medical image views. The provision of such instructing commands can be inconvenient and time consuming. Also, these kinds of image display systems do not allow for automatic coupling of screen layouts with hanging protocols. In view of the fact that a medical practitioner typically reviews medical images associated with numerous patients on a daily basis (e.g. radiologists typically screen between 100 to 150 patients a day), such a cumbersome approach does not allow the medical practitioner to optimize the quality or speed of medical image review.
Some prior art systems provide automation of certain aspects of the image display process.
For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,644,611 to McShane discloses an apparatus and method for maximizing the number of digital radiological images displayed on a display screen. Non-image portions of various medical image frames are reduced to maximize the number of images that can be presented on one image display screen. Also, the modified image frames are arranged on a display screen relative to one another in a plurality of rows and columns such that all image frames have the same widths and length.
Also, European Patent Application No. 1,229,459 to Shastri et al. discloses an image display method that provides a layout of image views based on a display protocol in which multiple display protocols are lined up in a predetermined order. The specific presentation protocols are stored in the memory of the displaying workstation such that a user can select a particular layout by specifying a particular display protocol sequence.
However, neither of these prior art systems provide an integrative approach to image display that reduces the amount of user input required for optimal display of medical image views according to a screen layout, a study view mode and hanging protocol.